The Feminist Version of Rape (Cathryn Crawford)

The Washington Dispatch ^ | August 15, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[William McKinley]

I enjoyed it, Cath. Well done.

So into the fray I jump, because I disagree with one of the premises of the article:

"who believe that men are monsters and women are powerless victims against them"

I hardly think that Patty Ireland thinks that men are mosters and women are powerless victims against them. On the contrary, I think Patty Ireland thinks men are powerless to combat the way she, and her NOW gang, can demagogue them, demonize them, shame them and guilt-trip them into empowering her and her organization.

You look at the way divorce law and abortion law is crafted in accord with their philosophies. Do you really think she is pushing for gender equity? Hell no. She is pushing for women to benefit, period. And she does this because she thinks men are powerless to stop it (and unworthy of equity themselves).

[FeliciaCat]

This is yet one more example of how OUT OUT TOUCH these so-called "Feminists" are with women under 35...I am in my early 30's and I find nothing appealing about a bunch of ball busting, man hating, grey haired,fat bull dykes constantly whining about being "victims" of this or that. These "wymen" do not speak for me and even my Liberal girl friends cringe at the word "Feminist". The are so out of touch with todays young women, I think they will be extinct soon. I have a teenage niece who barely knows what a feminist is...all she does know is that its not "cool". LOL.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You know, I understand and agree with your point, William.

However, I think that NOW may not believe that women are powerless, but it suit their purposes to convince them that they are, in certian circumstances. If women are vulnerable, and men take advantage of them, then who swoops in to save them?

Why, the feminists, of course.

[William McKinley]

Precisely. The membership, by and large, has bought into the politics of victimology.

But the leadership? I don't for a second believe they think men have an advantage over women. I believe they think they have men by the balls. A bunch of female supremecists.

[brownie]

"rape will always have a subjective component"

Meaning what? If a woman believes she was raped she was raped? Many states now allow for prosecution of rape if a woman was drunk and the next morning determines that she did not consent to the sex. Even if the guy was just as drunk. Now, I'm not condoning drunk sex with strangers - but the woman should be responsible for her actions, even if drunk.

There should be objective proof of force or threat of force before something is called rape. Not subject proof of how the woman claims she "felt".

[SauronOfMordor]

I agree. Rape is a question of consent. Rape is not, however, negative feelings after sex, feeling guilty after sex, or giving in to someone who is pestering you for sex. It's simply not.

The big danger to women here is the trivialization of the charge of rape. When enough women cry "Rape!" in response to "feeling pressured", or (possibly more often) anger over his pressuring her for sex, and then not calling the next day, people are not going to continue to take the charge seriously.

[SauronOfMordor]

I also note that merely being intoxicated does not absolve one from the consequences of your actions while under the influence. Did I commit a crime? Did she? (FWIW, I was the 'passive' partner in that encounter) It seems to Me that by your referenced position, either we are both guilty, or we are both innocent.

Here's another scenario: you are wealthy and a woman decides to get you drunk and have sex with you, for the purpose of getting pregnant by you and suing you for $$$$$ for child support. Has she committed a crime? From my viewpoint she has, but try getting a court to take you seriously

If I decide to get drunk, and while drunk do a bad thing, I am treated by the legal system as being just as guilty as if I did it while completely sober. But if, without my consent, somebody slipped something into my Pepsi which impaired me, I could probably make a good argument to get off.

My point here is that a woman who willingly consents to drink with a guy should not be allowed to cry "Rape!" if she subsequently drunkenly decides it would be a good idea to jump into bed with the guy, and later doesn't remember consenting. "Incapacitation rape" should be reserved for the case where he drugs her without her knowledge or consent.

[Utilizer]

Incapacitation rape" should be reserved for the case where he drugs her without her knowledge or consent.

Thank you. Thank God someone was intelligent enough to see and understand the underlying concept beneath My statements.